Talk:Breast implant

Let's discuss compromises and avoid a edit war

JFW, I'd like to talk to you about the edits you want, and hope we can compromise. Let's discuss one at a time. For example, there is a large new literature on the association between cosmetic surgery and body dysmorphic disorder, so why do you want to delete it?

Similarly, did you want to add that women getting breast augmentation are more likely to be married with children? You listed the Brinton study, but I believe that was based on marital status an average of 12 years AFTER surgery, not at the time of surgery. If I'm wrong, and there is good data to support that addition, it's fine with me. Drzuckerman 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You left this posting only 16 minutes before reverting again to your preferred version, insisting you had a mandate from a straw poll several weeks ago! I am not endorsing either version, but neither do I support large reversions on insufficient basis. In fact, I aim to facilitate here rather than actually choose sides. I state from the outset that while I'm probably not 100% neutral, I am one of the few remaining administrators who is committed to taking this article forward.

I was one of the editors who was supportive of inclusion of material on BDD. I support the addition of 2-3 references to large, well-constructed studies. I do not want a proliferation of 50 references on something that is rare in absolute terms.

I did not list the Brinton study, and with no access to the fulltext I cannot comment on the marital status issue. However, if the authors draw a conclusion but you disagree with that on methodological grounds, you should be writing to Plast Reconstr Surg rather than bring out this point here. This should remain strictly objective, rather than trying to characterise the recipients of breast implants (1) as nutcases, (2) as vulnerable people preyed on by a cynical industry. JFW | T@lk 08:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If breast implants are succesful in getting their recipients married over a 12-year timeframe, that can surely be presented as a favourable consequence :-)? JFW | T@lk 08:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• A more then passing tangent on BDD is not really specific to an entry on breast implants and is really lumped in with all other psychopathology (depression, etc..)when this has been addressed in the breast implant literature. It's more appropriately included in an entry on cosmetic plastic surgery (as a whole)where it's been estimated to exist in 10-15% of all comers. I think the take-home point re. this is well-characterized in the existing entry. Droliver 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wow Jfdwolf, I hope that comment about breast implants increasing the likelihood of women marrying was just a touch of sarcasm and not your interpretation of the Brinton article. I have also recently read the article. It is difficult to draw any temporal conclusions because there is no association between when women had their implants and when they were married. I don't think Dr. Zuckerman has a problem with the article but with your interpretation of the results. I find your comments off the mark as well. Also you must keep in mind that the comparison group was other plastic surgery recipients (not having breast implants) and the actual numbers of those married or common law were 62.7% with breast implants and 56.1% with other plastic surgery. The adjusted odds raito was even 1.00 not making it any different than chance. I believe that Dr. Z presents a more thoughtful discussion of the literature. I hope that a compromise can be reached that is not representative of one view over another. DrCarter12 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I thought the smiley was sufficient indication that my comment was whimsical. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dr Carter, you are right about the Brinton article. It is an excellent article, but misquoted on this wiki article until I changed it. JFW, to respond to your earlier comment about the Institute of Medicine report: it was written in 1999, and only a few epidemiological studies were published at that time. Dozens have been published since, and most are longer-term and better designed than the studies quoted by IOM. However, I have quoted them on complications, and droliver has repeatedly deleted that.

Also, JFW, if you did not read the article on marital status, then why did you revert to a version that recently added that quote about their marital status?

I repeat my interest in a compromise article, discussing one revision at a time. It sounds like we have dealt with the marital status issue above, so here's a simple one.

Doesn't it seem silly to start the article with a statement that enlarging the breast is called breast enlargement? First of all, it seems silly because it is obvious. Second because the more common terms are breast augmentation and breast enhancement. I have heard from women all over the world with implants, and they all call it ba or breast augmentation.

WordFox's comments seem helpful and I don't understand why JFW dismissed them. New editors should be welcomed, let's not insult them. And, I also agree with Dikke's comments that we should go back to discussing the specific publications that support various points of view. Droliver likes to quote the "international literature" but in fact he is quoting government political/regulatory reports, not scientific or medical ones. The standards are different. In the EU, devices are approved without clinical trials and taken off the market later if conclusively shown to cause serious harm. That does not mean that they are proven safe. If we are discussing science and medicine, let's stick with peer-reviewed research findings. And discuss each revision, one by one before making it.

---

Any comments on the "breast enlargement" issue I raised above or any more on the marital status issue? Drzuckerman 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because this is not a "battle of versions". I have stated that I do not aim to endorse either viewpoint at this stage but to stop the revert warring. You have been encouraged to make piecemeal changes after they have been adequately discussed and consensus has been reached.

The marital status issue will not be resolved unless you can achieve consensus. I have stated that I cannot comment either way without the fulltext. You seem to have DrCarter12 on your side, so let's see what Droliver thinks of this, and OBOS if she is around.

I do not support the removal of "breast enlargement" as a synonym. We use plenty of obvious synonyms, and this term is very popular here in the UK.

You did the same thing today - just revert because the present "version" is not satisfactory to you. This is not acceptable, and has in the past led to people being blocked from Wikipedia. Any further reverts along the same lines will be met with a request for comments. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also submit breast enlargement is fairly commonly used synonym as well for breast augmentation/implantation surgery
• There are a number of sources re. social & health characteristic of patients with implants, some of which specifically address the changes observed with current patients as compared to patient's having the surgery 20-30 years prior. I've never seen one that doesn't mention the marriage rate as being higher presently when it's been indexed, although I think this is a fairly marginal aspect of this entry to begin with. Droliver 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

•Dr Z mentioned getting a "compromise article" produced. She posed a couple of options that neither Jfdwolff or Droliver want to alter their position on. Perhaps one of you should suggest a place in the article where a consensus can be reached.DrCarter12 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though it sounds redundant, I don't see reason to take "enlargement" out. I find it more specific than "augmentation" which only means change (breast reduction is also augmentation). "Enhancement" sounds POV to me because it means to make something Better-- but if it's in medical liturature then I wouldn't argue against it, but of course again enhancement doesn't always mean enlargement. For that Punky Brewster chick, her enhancement was a reduction.
Re marriage, sounds kinda trivial. Linking the two would be difficult. Perhaps women who seek implants are more traditional-minded and are more likely to marry than co-habitate? I don't see how you could find a cause-and-effect with this one, and if the numbers are trivial, I wouldn't even add it. Dikke poes 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromises: #1 augment

Let me clarify what I meant about the first sentence of this article. It currently says:

A breast implant is a prosthesis used to enlarge the size of a woman's breasts(known as breast augmentation or breast enlargement).

Even though the dictionary definition of augment is to "make larger" I think the problem with the sentence is that it says that enlarging the size of a woman's breasts is known as breast enlargement. That is redundant. Breast augmentation means the same thing but at least it uses a different word.

I agree with Dikke Poes that breast reduction could be enhancement. And I also agree with Dikke Poes that enhancement certainly implies improvement, so augmentation or enlargement is a more NPOV term. The first sentence could instead say: A breast implant is a prosthesis used to increase the size of a woman's breasts (known as breast augmentation or breast enlargement).

Is there any opposition? I will wait a few days for feedback before revising it, to make sure that JFW does not object.

I also agree about the marriage issue -- I will defer to Dr Carter, who mentioned that the study did not find a significant increase in married status. Drzuckerman

Agree with version containing all synonyms. Most breast enlargements are with the use of implants. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromises # 2: Symptoms can increase even if diagnoses haven't

As several of us previously stated, the 2004 Danish study by Brieting et al specified statistically significant increases in several important autoimmune symptoms, including the unusual symptoms of Raynaud's disease. It is important to distingush between symptoms and diagnosis, because much longer term studies are needed to determine diagnoses. Symptoms can change significantly first. So that change has been made. Drzuckerman

Could you please wait until we're done discussing this?

Inserting the phrase "More research is needed" is editorialising and fails WP:NPOV.

Why are the reviews quoted "government" reviews, rather than "independent systemic (comprehensive)"? You haven't explained.

There's no such thing as "autoimmune symptoms". There are symptoms, and there's autoimmune disease. Hepatitis B and osteoarthritis are not autoimmune, yet both can cause joint pains. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree completely with JFW. Aside from this particular study there are an avalanche of other large studies & reviews concluding the same thing (ie. no increase in AI disease). Reinterpreting the conclusion of these to imply otherwise is inconsistant with current widespread international consensus and wikipedia's no original research recomendations. Editorializing "More research is needed" and muddying the water over how AI diseases are in fact diagnosed is clearly too much innuendo. The positions of international medical,scientific, and regulatory organizations are VERY clear where they come down on this and are what should ostensibly be represented in an encyclopedic view of this.Droliver 02:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why does DrOliver not feel that a fuller description of symptomology is valid when referring to the Danish Study? Though their diagnosis of autoimmune disorders were not more prevalent, associated symptoms as Dr. Z mentioned were. I believe that is an important thing to include in the article.DrCarter12 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What you propose is in fact an end-run reinterpretation of the conclusions of this paper by tossing out an out of context part of the data. In the larger picture, the idea you're pushing is not currently accepted by any federal or medical organization in the worldDroliver 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Associated symptoms" is a very vague term that is best avoided. As I stated, every so-called "autoimmune symptom" has a long differential diagnosis. As stated, joint pains may be due to a large number of non-autoimmune conditions (I'll add Lyme disease, tuberculosis and infectious endocarditis for good measure).

DrCarter12, could you please start using edit summaries when editing? Your edit today may have its merits, but you should summarise what you've done, preferably without making personal attacks at other editors (as often happens in edit wars). JFW | T@lk 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that- will do.DrCarter12 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the description of the 2004 Danish study. It is important to say that there were significant increases in symptoms of Raynauds disease, as well as fatigue, memory loss, and other autoimmune diseases, even though there was no increase in diagnoses of diseases. As we all know, symptoms tend to be noticed years before these diseases are diagnosed. Dr. Oliver’s edits make this section NPOV. OBOS Editor 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• You have a misunderstanding of this paper and how population-based studies on rheumatology are performed and interpreted. You're trying to infer something (a relationship to disease) that is in fact not demonstrated in this paper or any of the other major popultaion study papers or comprehensive reviews. I would again point you to any number of 3rd party sources of authority which have uniformly rejected this. Droliver 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

--The OBOS editor is correct. I am an epidemiologist and I concur completely. Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS) is a internationally cited book on women's health, translated into many languages. The OBOS editor is quoting a study funded by implant manufacturers that droliver also cited. She didn't infer causation, she merely listed statistically significant increases in symptoms that may be a sign of a causal relationship since all the other variables were statistically controlled. It's all in quotes, and droliver has repeatedly removed it. The "third party" sources mentioned by droliver are all very brief summaries of data on diagnosis of systemic disease, but they are not saying there is no evidence of symptoms -- as several of us (including Dr Carter) have stated before, that is an important distinction. 3 of us agree (a physician, women's health editor, and epidemiologist), and droliver (a plastic surgeon) disagrees. JFW I hope we can count on your help so that a compromise article can move forward. In recent weeks, droliver's changes have been kept and most other changes have been deleted. Drzuckerman

• OBOS is a book which makes no bones about its feminist political leanings in the treatment of many health related topics. It is not a reference medical textbook despite the fact that some of it's chapters individually are quite good. It's chapters on implants and cosmetic surgery are not one of those, and the content and editorial POV is distinctly out of step with the international consensus and the medical literature. That's all well and good, but it does not carry much weight if you're pointing towards it in the way a medical topic should be presented when there are a dozen or more current medical textbooks which do in fact address this quite clearly. The conclusion of the study in question speaks for itself as do the related work - there is no predictable or identifiable pattern of symptoms or disease which is the observation of every large study going on two decades. What you seek to highlight is clearly intended to imply something completely contrary to the study result itself. As has been pointed this is both innacurate and falls into the "original research" trap.

Droliver 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

--Just because OBOS is feminist does not mean it is not scientific. In fact, OBOS is written by many physicians from major medical schools. Droliver, your bias is showing.Drzuckerman 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• If bias is insisting upon reflecting this in the way that standard reference textbooks, the medical literature, & the regulatory agencies around the world treat it, then yes I am biased toward that. Droliver 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More revisions

I was surprised to see DrCarter's comments about "revert" regarding her edits, but realized she didn't revert the entire article but only revised one small section on patients. She did a great job of clarifying the data on patient characteristics. JFW or Dikke had asked for more info on the marital status data. DrCarter, can you provide that? I think that would help everyone, since that keeps getting changed back despite the lack of data to support it Drzuckerman

--JWolff, do I understand correctly that you will always revert to droliver's version of this article, no matter who or how many editors disagree and no matter what evidence we provide that droliver's version has inaccurate representations? Drzuckerman

This is not about versions anymore. I have already explained that I will revert if edits are not sufficiently discussed and explained. I can't help the fact that Droliver seems to be largely playing things by the book.

What concerns me more is the fact that there are so many editors (Drzuckerman, DrCarter12, OBOS editor etc) all having empty userpages, all editing this article alone, and occasionally doing things rather similarly (e.g. using HTML markup when this is not strictly necessary). I have tried to assume good faith, but occasionally I wonder whether all those voices could all be coming from the same person. In other words, whether there is sock puppetry going on here. I will not make this point again, but if there are ongoing concerns I will have to request that identities are verified. Undeclared sock puppetry is a bannable offence. JFW | T@lk 07:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As regards to the "Patient Characteristics" section changes- I only edited this section because I thought it would not be a contestable section to proceed with - it appears that I was wrong. Some things that I mentioned in my version were pretty much echoed by DrOliver's version. However he appears to see his version as the only way to describe the section. Is there a way that the 2 versions be blended?

As regards to Dikke's comment regarding the triviality with the married statistics between breast implant and other plastic surgery patients is valid. The adjusted odds ratio for the married and common law groups were no different from chance. This was also seen in the separated and divorce groups. The never married groups did have a larger representation in the other plastic surgery group- not breast implant. However the Brinton study was done to just prove that when comparing statistics of breast implant patients, a contol group consisting of women witih other plastic surgeries was more appropriate than comparing them to the general popluation. The authors did not provide any causality to these differences. They did agree that more research needs to be done to answer many of those questions.DrCarter12 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is a somewhat esoteric and relatively unimportant thing to get into in the first place, but the Brinton paper (by a 62.7% vs. 56.1 margin of its subjects, though the CI disappears when you play with the numbers to adjust for differences in age) and several other related papers all do have this difference in marriage rates. There's another upublished survery of implant patients that was sponsored by the Aesthetic Society's research foundation (ASERF) a few years ago which also had substancially higher rates of marriage among respondents as compared to US census data. Whether or not a more appropriate group for comparison is other plastic surgery patients or the general population seems irrelevent to these observations. Is your concern with this that there is some implication that implants increase your chances of getting married? Droliver 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision of the Capsular Contraction section ONLY

Let's try to reach a concensus this way. Below is a suggested revision of the capsular contraction section only. I thought that we could discuss my proposed changes and then hopefully come to a final product that everyone can agree with. Thanks.

“Capsules of tightly-woven collagen fibers form as an immune response around a foreign body (eg. breast implants, pacemakers, orthopedic joint prosthetics), tending to wall it off. Capsular contracture occurs when the capsule tightens and squeezes the implant. This contracture is a complication that can be very painful and distort the appearance of the implanted breast. The exact cause of contracture is not known. However, some factors include bacterial contamination, silicone rupture or leakage, and hematoma.Capsular contracture may happen again after this additional surgery.

Correction of capsular contracture may require surgical removal or release of the capsule or removal (and possible replacement) of the implant itself. Closed capsulotomy (disrupting the capsule via external manipulation), was once a common maneuver for treating hard capsules; implant makers now warn against the procedure because it can cause implant rupture. Although there is no agreement on effectiveness, nonsurgical methods of treating capsules include external ultrasound{Planas J.Five-year experience on ultrasonic treatment of breast contractures.Aesthetic Plast Surg.2001.25(2):p89-93},treatment with leukotriene pathway inhibitors (Accolate, Singulair){Schlesinger SL, et al.Zafirlukast (Accolate): A new treatment for capsular contracture. Aesthetic Plast Surg.2002.22(4):329-336},and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy{Silver H. Reduction of capsular contracture with two-stage augmentation mammaplasty and pulsed electromagnetic energy (Diapulse therapy).Plast Reconstr Surg.1982. 69(5):802-8}.”DrCarter12 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• What exactly is in this that is substancially different from the existing version?Droliver 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the first paragraph is a fragment and doesn't make sense. Also is the first sentence correct: is the capsule an immune response - there is no inflammation to see on histology. Will TALK 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Removed the "prevention" methods section and concentrated more on treatment. Will, the last sentence is not a fragment (may be throwing you off because of the citations). also agree inflammatory cells are not found in the capsule but it is the product of an inflammatory response to the implant itself. DrCarter12 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, prevention is discussed in the literature at least as much as treatment

Droliver 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Picture

I know there was some debate about this before, but if a fair use picture is going to be shown of a completed breast augmentation that didn't work, shouldn't one also be shown of one that did work? Showing neither or showing both seems fair, but showing an image of only one possible result seems like weasel wording the article only with images not words. [2007-05-12 T 23:06 UTC]

At some point I've been planning on making a gallery for a handful preop/postop pictures of sterotypical cases and results for augmentation, augmentation/lift case, and reconstructive patients. I just haven't gotten around to looking thru pictures I have with consents for releaseDroliver 02:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I finally got around to it. 2 cases with average candidates & representative results are depicted.Droliver 21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rupture

The fourth paragraph ends, "MRI data from the US-FDA required "core" studies of contemporary implants has demonstrated low rupture rates ("

Is anyone able to fix this? It seems there is something missing at the end. Thank you. Fanra 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Repair or revision surgery

It seems the word "revision" is in question here. Let's look at the line: "Most common indications for re-operations have included major or minor cosmetic revisions, capsular contracture treatment, and replacement of ruptured/deflated implants."

Now let us look at the citation for that line: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/handbook2004/localcomplications.html

According to the citation, it does not give actually figures for what are the most common indications for re-operations, however, it does state (without giving numbers) that "You are likely to have the implants removed, with or without replacement, because of one or more complications over the course of your life." The citation goes on to state the various reasons that women will have to get re-operations.

The word "revision" is used twice. Once in the section heading, where it states, "Key points to consider whether you are undergoing breast augmentation, reconstruction, or revision:", and again, where it discusses type of surgical procedure(s), "scar or wound revision (e.g., surgical removal of excess scar tissue)". The word "revision" is not the most common word used to describe the reasons for re-operation, the word used is "complications". Indeed, while "revision" is used 2 times, "complication" is used 19 times.

When it was changed back from "repairs", which I put in, back to "revisions", it was said that the common medical term is "revisions", not "repairs". If that is true, then it needs a citation. Since the citation used was the FDA article, using the word "revision" is wrong, since it is a incorrect citation. According to the article cited, the word used should be "complications". If there is a feeling that the word "revisions" should be used instead, then we need to see some citations that support it. Remember that Wikipedia is all about referenced sources, not what we might think (or know) is correct but what the sources say.

I will give people time to respond to this before I change it to match the source cited. Fanra 11:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Revision" is the term used for any surgery that needs to be re-done. That applies to hip replacements as much as it does to breast implants. On the whole, references are not needed to support the use of terminology. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement might be true. However, Wikipedia is not written for doctors but for the lay public. Therefore, any terms used should be those that are clear to the general public. The word "revision" in general implies either a change of mind, or correction, or both. The sentence says, "Most common indications": Is the most common reasons for revision surgery a change of mind or a correction? The answer is correction. Therefore, I believe we should use a word that is clear about that rather than one which, while it might be crystal clear to the medical community, is ambiguous to the general public.

I originally used the word "repairs". I am open to another word besides complications as long as it is unambiguous. Since the FDA uses "complications", that is what I went with. I felt (correctly or incorrectly) that the FDA consulted both doctors and public relations experts in deciding to use that term as the clearest for the general public. Fanra 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Micromastia

I am requesting that those editors interested in breast issues to please comment in the Talk:Micromastia#Request for Comment: Micromastia on the article Micromastia. I had edited the article to include the controversy over the term and another editor removed any mention of the controversy and he also disagrees with me over the term itself. I am seeking more opinions (especially from doctors) on this issue in the hopes that we can resolve the issues. Currently, I have no hope of doing so but I would like everyone to prove me wrong and manage to get everyone to agree on a good NPOV article. Thanks. Fanra 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexism

I think that it's sexist only to have before and after pictures of women's breast augmentation here! Why are people so afraid of showing men with bigger boobs? --BiT 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We may be sexist, but you are completely retarded. -75.26.6.190 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversa/removal

There doesn't seem to be a section or article on breast implant removal? Stevage 04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removal is just not as interesting or complex a topic. I'd be happy to write something about that. What are the aspects of that which you'd like to know about? Droliver 02:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any particular interest in the topic, but I saw a red link to breast implant removal (I think), and realised it had nowhere to go to. It might be interesting to note how common it is, or reasons why it's done. A section would probably be sufficient. Stevage 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nursing

Can women with breast implants still nurse their young? A passage near the end would seem to imply that under normal circumstances they could and only when there is chronic pain or numbness does this become a problem, but a clearer explanation of how this surgery can/does/doesn't affect the practical aspect of breast use would improve the article imo. 70.144.172.162 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception

I think we should include how breast implants are ridiculous — totally unattractive — and that the women who get them are fucking idiots and havereally poor taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this talkpage serves to discuss the article, not your personal opinion. Also, the invective is discouraged. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Balance needed

Several comments have expressed concern about the lack of balance (NPOV) in this article. I have consulted with several authors of articles on breast implants and plastic surgery, who agreed that some of literature review excludes findings that show statistically significant increases in pain and other symptoms. In many cases, these findings are in the same articles that were cited, but only the "good news" was included in this article. I added some info for balance, but more is needed. Dr NRC (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have largely removed information, but perhaps that is what was needed. Don't you think it would have been better if we'd discussed this first?

I'm also puzzled by your use of HTML tags in the wikitext (e.g. <p>). JFW | T@lk 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dr. NRC - It's kind of silly to rehash this. There's no literature suggesting any change in our established beliefs re. this topic. Health ministries from the USA, UK, Canada, and European Union have all reconfirmed their positions on this within the last 2 years. Long-term outcome studies published this year also continue to confirm previous conclusions [PMID 17321754 ]If you wish to familiarize yourself with this topic in detail, you can refer to the most recent comprehensive review of this published this month in Annals of Plastic Surgery [PMID 17992155] Droliver (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

An anonymous editor added the following:

Many women have turned to non-surgical alternatives to breast enhancement, or cleavage enhancement, such as external breast tissue expanders. Worn a minimum of 10 hours a day, for a minimum of 10 weeks an external tissue expander, applies a gentle sustained tension to the breast. This expansion process is similar to procedure using tension for bone or other tissue growth. Studies have shown growth results to be vary, but are in between 1/2 cup to 2 cup sizes if such a treatment is followed correctly. The Brava System is an example of a non-surgical breast tissue expander.

Given that this is mostly an advert for the Brava System, I removed it. However, I'm curious whether we should mention alternatives to surgery at all. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article is nominally about breast implants, I too don't think BRAVA (which is not particularly effective to begin with) really belongs lumped in with it. This is a kind of tissue expansion technique, & it is not a widely used device by any stretch of the imagination for what it's worth. There is some mention of alternate techniques in the history section.Droliver (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Transgender

Should a mention be made that this proceedure is sometimes performed on transwomen who want a more feminine appearance? Czolgolz 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarring and ethnicity

How does one's ethnicity affect the scarring? Wouldn't it more likely be the skin colour itself, and not the mere ethnicity? 83.72.194.208 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Issues

I think that there should be discussion about the sociological, historic and psycholgical aspects of the topic. Why do women want to have larger (or sometimes smaller) breasts ? The phenomenon also has issues from evolutionary biology.

12.159.138.194 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL WUT? Source or GTFO.

Seriously though, it's because the world is run by misogynistic bastards! Don't worry though, once Hillary gets in everything is going to change. --64.180.8.4 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Breast enlargement shouldn't redirect here

It seems misleading that breast enlargement redirects here but this article only has info on one way of enlarging breasts, namely via implants. Other methods such as pills, hormones, and exercises should be discussed, probably in separate articles (whether these methods work or not is a topic for those articles). A first step would seem to be to make breast enlargement a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. --Gronky (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The use of pills or hormones, etc.. for breast enlargement is a super-duper miniscule impact on breast enlargment methodology. Those kind of things would be better addressed in the breast entry to describe hormone manipulation. Droliver (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so some information about "breast enlargement" would be on the "breast implants" page, and the other info is on the "breasts" page -namely, info about breast development (which is enlargement), affects of hormones, and effects of diet/pills/medication. Thus the "breast enlargement" info is on two pages, so breast enlargement should be a disambiguation page with a link to each of the two pages and a sentence for each saying which info is on which. With the exception of "I'd disagree", you seem to be agreeing with me :-) --Gronky (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the redirect as well. Even bogus breast enlargement is still part of the breast enlargement phenomenon, whether it works or not. I say can the redirect and develop the article on its own merits. I'll help. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The lemma should be renamed to "Breast augmentation". There are methods other than implants avialable for breast augmentation today, such as breast augmentation with stem cells. --62.47.142.206 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it fucking should! Who is responsible? Fucking biased! 121.209.149.44 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

COI

Just a heads up, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#National Women.27s Health Network. KnightLago (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this video encyclopedic?

I found it on Commons.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. There's no pre-op picture, no information as to what type of implants they are, and no indication as to whether or not they are placed subdermal or submuscular. I'd hardly call it educational. Asarelah (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. There's quite a bit of documentation as to the type and placement of these funbags. See here for technical specs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to watch the video a few more times to make a judgement call.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it does make sense. This is a surgery of a sexualized part of the body, and they are often done for purely aesthetic reasons (either reconstruction or augmentation). This video does appear to be made with full documentation to show the characteristics of the breast implants. They are presented covered in a typical outfit, and movement is shown. While it can be viewed as erotic, it is actually presented in as straight forward and informative a manner as "how do augmented breasts jiggle and sway" can be. I'd imagine that somebody considering this surgery would view that video as providing information that is hard to find elsewhere. 68.63.165.28 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Asarelah.--Candyflipping Platypus (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

There's a fair bit of external links. Should they be trimmed? Is it necessary to have four general links to the major health governing body websites (CDC, Health Canada, UK and Australia)? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Human Stem Cell Breast Enhancement

I recommend changing the title of this article to "Breast Enhancement" because of new methods of increasing breast size. I am interested in a non-biased view on this new Human Stem Cell breast enhancement and there is nothing on wikipedia about it. I understand they are already doing it in Japan and in Europe. The idea is that you really aren't putting some foreign implant in your body, but rather growing more of your own tissue. Anyone have any good information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.167.70 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"All such devices will fail at some point"

There's a citation needed tag on this obvious statement. Would a citation to entropy articles or the second law of thermodynamics suffice? Thoughts?--24.29.234.88 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Silicone implants redirect

I disagree with "Silicone implants" being redirected here - breast implants are not the only kinds of silicone implants, and this article deals with saline implants as well.